Tulsa Criminal Defense Attorney | Quality Service | Cale Law Office
This content was written for Cale Law Office
If you’ve been charged with a crime, you need quality representation. Call the Cale Law Office at 918-277-4800 to schedule your free initial consultation. Tulsa criminal defense attorney Stephen Cale has nearly two decades of legal experience. He focuses on criminal defense and civil asset forfeiture.
Attorney Cale works hard to try to get the best possible result for his clients. At his initial consultation with the prospective client, he will develop a defense strategy plan. This is a document that the client can take with them to see the path that attorney Cale will take in trying to defend them and get them the best result.
When the first things that attorney Cale will do is look at the charge. He will look to see whether or not the prosecutor properly charged his client. In some instances is able to get the charge dismissed because the state did not properly word the charge. Tulsa criminal defense attorney Stephen Cale has got charges dismissed before on this basis.
The second thing he will do is file discovery motion. This is a motion that forces the state to turn over evidence that it has against the defendant. This includes both unfavorable and favorable evidence for the client. The state has a legal obligation to surrender what’s called exculpatory evidence. Exculpatory evidence is evidence favorable to the defendant in a criminal trial that exonerates or tends to exonerate the defendant guilty. The state also has a legal obligation to turn over evidence that may mitigate the severity if the jury finds a person guilty.
Thirdly, there will be a preliminary hearing. The purpose of the preliminary hearing is to determine two things. First, it is to determine whether or not there is probable cause that a crime was committed. Secondly, it is to determine whether there is probable cause that the defendant committed the crime. Tulsa criminal defense attorney Stephen Cale always seeks a dismissal at the conclusion of the preliminary hearing. By doing this, he is arguing that there is not sufficient evidence to charge stand. He can also seek a dismissal after the preliminary hearing by filing a written request.
After a preliminary hearing, the next stage is district court arraignment. This is a procedural matter where the defendant will again plead either guilty or not guilty. If you plead guilty there is usually a plea deal. Sometimes in a plea deal, a person will be put on probation. Sometimes the person will be sent to jail or prison for an agreed term. A person may also be sentenced to part incarceration and part probation. Tulsa criminal defense attorney Stephen Cale will work hard to try to get the best result for you.
Thompson was convicted of first-degree manslaughter and failure to stop at a stop sign. He was sentenced to twenty years in prison on the first count as well as the second. The first count is an eighty-five percent crime. This means that a person must serve eighty-five percent of his sentence before being eligible for parole consideration. On appeal, he argued that the trial court erred in denying his motion to quash and instructing the jury on an enhanced range of punishment.
The defendant argued that he was surprised by the second-page allegations because the second page is not filed with each amended information. However, the Oakland Court of Criminal Appeals is an upheld a conviction where the second page was not initially filed separately and not included with subsequent information. The appellate court also found that the trial court did not commit an error in instructing jurors on the range punishment.
The defendant did not object instructions given at the sentencing and waived all but plain error. Plain error is an actual error that is plain or obvious and that has the effect of interfering with the defendant substantial rights. Or, it could affect the outcome of the trial. The defendant’s claim of an incorrect instruction relies solely on the claim that there was no evidence of a prior conviction presented the preliminary hearing. The type of charges that prosecutor may bring is up to his or her discretion.
In another case, the stop the charges stemmed from a warrantless entry into the defendants rule residential property by drug task force agents the aliens went to the defendant’s property after aerial surveillance indicated that marijuana was being cultivated in the patch near his residence. The defendant’s property was enclosed by a fence in the gravel driveway to the residence was blocked by a locked gate.
Eight agents entered the property unannounced by climbing over the lock eight. At least two of the agents were directed toward the resin itself where they were met by the defendant. These were dressed in military-style fatigues and boots. They were armed with pistols and semi-automatic rifles. A police helicopter surveyed the scene and dissented to a low altitude as the agents approach the defendant.
The agents who approach the defendant told him they were aware of marijuana being grown on the property. The defendant made some kind of affirmative response. Then the agents asked for permission to search. The defendant complied.
During the conversation exchange, the defendant was told that if he did not consent to a search, the agents would seek a search warrant. During the search, the agents found not only a patch of marijuana the various drug paraphernalia assault associated with cultivation. On appeal, the defendant contended that his consent to a search of his property was non-voluntary. As a fundamental rule to searches conducted outside the judicial process without prior approval of the judge is presumptively unreasonable an important both the fourth amendment to the nine states Constitution and the Oakland Constitution.
The Oakland Court of Criminal Appeals concluded that the agents’ entry into the property without a warrant or consent or some emergency circumstances was illegal. This is because the perimeter was cute secured by fence and proceeding between the two residential structures in order to confront the defendant was an unlawful entry onto the curtilage of the home. Therefore agents violated the defendant’s constitutional protection from unreasonable intrusion.